Downswood,

If you can master the inscrutabilities of a Minolta camera manual, you can master anything.

G

Downswood,

Looking back at your original question, you asked: "Would it work in Av with the lens set at max aperture?"

The answer is yes (even for the Pentax tubes).

However, this is probably the last thing you would want to do. Macro photography is all about capturing fine detail. This is not compatible with full aperture, which tends on most lenses to be rather soft.

Furthermore, because depth of field is very restricted at close range, most macro photographs are taken with the lens set at a small aperture.

However, it is usually the case in macro photography that you have both time, and control over light. This means that operating in manual exposure mode is no great hardship, especially with digital where you can experiment until you obtain perfect exposure.

Since you are looking for a cost-effective way into macro, I think tubes will be a good start. I use them on my FA 1:2.8 100mm macro when I want to get even closer, so buying a macro lens doesn't mean the tubes are redundant. And you can of course use them on all your lenses.

Kim, of course, is absolutely right in saying that a dedicated macro lens is the best solution, but the best solution is rarely cheap. Having said that, the M macros are not too pricey, but they are MF lenses, and they don't offer Av on a DSLR. If you want to play safe, and don't mind spending money, buy an F or FA 100mm, and you can use it as a very sharp short tele for normal purposes.

George

Matt,

My brain works better in the morning. I think what you are saying is that when using the Pentax tubes on a D or DS, you set the aperture you want to use on the lens, set the camera to manual, and meter the way you do with K or M lenses.

When you press the shutter, the tubes will stop the lens down to the pre-set aperture, and you will have a correctly exposed picture.

It's basically exactly like using a K or M lens.

G

Matt,

My apologies. It seems you are better informed than I am. My tubes aren't Pentax, so I wasn't aware that the Pentax ones are "crippled".

G

Matt, I think you have confused the issue here.

Extension tubes on digital SLRs work exactly as they do on film SLRs.

If they are AUTO tubes, then you can use whatever exposure mode you like on the D or DS. If they are manual tubes, then of course they must be used in manual mode.

G

Many independent camera repairers should be able to deal with the foam, and some SLR owners do it themselves. If you are in the UK, Harrow Technical would be one to try:

http://www.harrowtechnical.co.uk/

The lenses you mention can all be obtained quite cheaply on Ebay in Pentax-M versions, as can the 135mm 1:3.5 if you find the Ozeck isn't up to scratch. I have all these, and am very fond of the 75-150mm zoom.

These two sites are required reading:

http://stans-photography.info/

http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/

If you haven't used Ebay, it is pretty safe if you take care to buy from people with good feedback who appear to know what they are talking about. Avoid any seller who says "I know nothing about photography" (unless you spot an absolute bargain, but be aware of the risk). Generally, in my experience, those who take care over their ad are likely to have taken care of the equipment.

Good luck.

George

The MZ-6 is the more sophisticated camera.

http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/bodies/MZ-ZX/index.html

G

Kevin,

You mentioned the beer, remember! I wasn't seriously insinuating that your pictures needed alcohol to be appreciated, just as I wasn't seriously suggesting that nobody at all in the entire world was buying film cameras. Of course a few are still being sold, but only a mere fraction of the numbers sold five years ago. This was obvious hyperbole.

Two final points. The first is that many people nowadays buy their lenses second-hand, thanks to the wonders of the Internet, and this supply is not going to suddenly dry up, although the prices of desirable lenses have gone up a bit recently. In fact, I recently bought the famous 24-90 on Ebay, and a very fine lens it is.

Secondly, I believe that Pentax plan to produce quite a number of new lenses over the course of the next year or so, and it is quite possible that there will be some full-frame ones among them, like the two new macro lenses that came out late last year.

George

PS: Liked your pics. However, I have been going to Llanberis for forty years, and have never seen the lake quite that shade of blue. Are you honestly telling me: "Yes it was really like that, especially the colours"?

Kevin,

You said: "I guess that this is why many leading landscape photo libraries require non-interpolated digital images with resolution that could only be achieved by scanning 35mm (or larger) film, far beyond that of current digital cameras."

Actually, many digital photographers are supplying re-sampled images to photo libraries, and the quality is indistinguishable from 35mm, even when using a 6mp camera.

"... my (35mm) lenses produce great transparancies which look superb when projected for a group of friends with a few beers, or for a larger audience."

Most people's pictures look good after a few beers! But I agree that projected slides do look wonderful. However, most people do not shoot slides, and I was talking about most people.

"... not photoshoped skies etc that ruin so many digital pics".

Irrelevant. The fact that some people drive badly does not render cars useless. The fact that some people don't use Photoshop properly doesn't render digital useless.

"Anyone who tells me that digital projection is on a par with 35mm is clearly talking out of their rear apperture" (sic).

Irrelevant. Nobody said that. You should be in politics. I actually said: "For most people, and in most situations, this [digital] is a better solution than film". I didn't mention digital projection (and nor did you until now). I happen to agree with you about slides. Colour prints from digital, however, are just as good as colour prints from 35mm, and far more consistent in quality. And most people use their digital cameras for prints or for viewing on computer.

"A great benefit of Pentax 35mm gear is the lens coatings, and tough compact bodies. For Pentax to move away from film (35mm at least) makes thes features worthless."

Worthless? How? Good lenses and tough bodies are just as desirable for digital.

"With digital you can add any colour you want after the event."

Irrelevant. And incidentally, getting exposure and colour balance right in the camera saves a lot of time later.

Kevin, you haven't addressed the main point, which is that (virtually) nobody is buying film cameras any more, and those manufacturers who only offer film cameras are going out of business in droves. It is the customers who are not supporting 35mm, not the manufacturers, as you stated.

The reason digital is a better solution (for most people in most situations) is the killer combination of cost, convenience and control.

Keen digital photographers spend far less than film photographers because mistakes and practice shots cost nothing, because you only print what you want, and because viewing pictures on a computer screen is completely cost-free.

The convenience of seeing what you have shot immediately after doing so is wonderful. If it didn't work, you take another. As soon as you get home, you've got your pictures. And, they're on computer, where they are so easy to view.

And as for control, there is no comparison at all. Pictures are cropped and adjusted just the way the photographer wants them. This is all but impossible when having prints made commercially from film.

I very much doubt that Minolta or Nikon will continue to serve 35mm much longer, and Canon will only do so in the slightly longer term IF they continue to produce full-frame digital cameras. If they continue to produce new lenses for this format, they will be much too expensive for you if you have to buy Sigmas now because they will sell so few of them.

For you, Kevin, film is a better solution than film. I completely accept that. But don't knock all digital photography because it doesn't happen to meet your requirements, and don't knock Pentax for catering to the majority. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist, and where would your "commitment" be then?

George

PS: I used to do a bit of climbing at one time, and have some lovely slides taken in the Himalayas. For such a trip, I would still take a film camera. It's the right solution for the circumstances.

It has clearly escaped Kevin Stephen's notice that there has recently been a change in the way cameras capture photographic images. For the past four or five years, a new type of camera has come on the market which captures images digitally. For most people, and in most situations, this is a better solution than film, so nobody buys film cameras any more.

Camera manufacturers have either moved production to digital, or gone out of business (Contax, Bronica, Leica next month, Mamiya any minute now, Hasselblad soon).

It is because customers are not showing any commitment to film that this has happened. Pentax was in fact slow to bring out a digital SLR, and suffered accordingly. Nonetheless, their entire digital SLR range is capable of using lenses made 30 years ago. Can Canon say that? Certainly not.

What is important is Pentax's commitment to its customers, not to a technology that few people still want (judged by what they are buying). In this respect, I think Pentax shows more commitment than any other manufacturer, which is why I take exception to ill-thought-out comments from Luddites like Mr Stephens.

George